Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutRES NO 11-85RESOLUTION NO. 11-85 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD MAKING FINDINGS AND CERTIFYING THE FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT REPORT FOR PROPOSED ANNEXATION OF GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS FOR, AND PREZONING OF PROPERTY IN SECTION 1 T.30S.,R.26E., M.D.B.&M. AND GENERAL PLAN AMENDMENTS AND PREZONING FOR PROPERTY IN SECTION 6, T.30S.,R.27 E, M,D.B.&M. WHEREAS, it is proposed that approximately 7.2 acres of land currently located in Kern County south of Stockdale Highway, west of Buena Vista Road be annexed to the City of Bakersfield; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan be extended to depict the proposed annexation area as office; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the area to be annexed be zoned (Commercial and Professional Office) Zone; C-0 and WHEREAS, project sponsors propose that the Land Use Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan be amended from Low Density Residential to Office for 45 acres located south of the existing alignment of Stockdale Highway, east of Buena Vista Road, and that the area located east of Buena Vista Road, north of the proposed westerly extension of Ming Avenue, be amended from Low Density Residential to Commercial for 21.6 acres, to High Density Residential for 8.4 acres, and to Office for 6 acres; and WHEREAS, project sponsors propose that the zoning on proper- ties within the city described above be changed from an A (Agricultural) Zone to a C-0 (Commercial and Professional Office) Zone for 45 acres, to a C-2 (Commercial) Zone for 21.6 acres, to an R-4 (Multiple-Family Dwelling) Zone for 8.4 acres and to a C-O Zone for 6 acres to be consistent with proposed Land Use Element designations; and WHEREAS, it is proposed that the Circulation Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area General Plan be amended to depict the proposed southerly realignment of Stockdale Highway west of Old River Road to the Kern River; and WHEREAS, a Draft Environmental Impact Report on said pro- posal was prepared by the City of Bakersfield under contract with a consultant, circulated and distributed in accordance with the requirement of law and applicable regulations; and WHEREAS, public and private agencies and individuals sub- mitted written comments on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, as listed in the comments and Responses; and WHEREAS, a duly noticed public hearing was held and con- ducted by and before the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission in accordance with the procedures required by City Resolution 132-83, on December 6, 1984, at which hearing the public was entitled to comment on the Draft Environmental Impact Report; and WHEREAS, the City has responded in writing to all significant points raised by the public and private agencies and indivi- duals in the review and public hearing process, and the Final Environmental Impact Report, consisting of the Draft Environmental Impact Report, comments and recommendations received on the Draft Environmental Impact Report, including a list of persons or organizations and public agencies commenting on the Draft and the responses of the City as aforesaid was completed by the Development Services Department and placed on the Agenda of the Regular Meeting of the Planning Commission on December 20, 1984, for evaluation and consideration by said Commission; and, -3- WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the basis of the Section 6 General Plan amendment EIR, identified a number of significant or potentially significant effects asso- ciated with the approval of the proposed Annexation, General Plan Amendment, Zoning Upon Annexation and Zone Changes; and WHEREAS, the California Environmental Quality Act requires one or more of the following findings as to each significant effect: (1) Changes or alterations have been required in, or incorporated into, the project which mitigate or avoid the significant environmental effects thereof as identified in the Final EIR. (2) Such changes or alterations are within the responsibility and jurisdiction of another public agency and not the agency making the finding. Such changes have been adopted by such other agency or can and should be adopted by such other agency. (3) Specific economic, social, or other con- siderations make infeasible the mitigation measures or project alternatives iden- tified in the Final EIR; and WHEREAS, such findings are supported by substantial evidence in the record summarized for each identified significant or potentially significant effect, below, accompanied by a statement of the facts supporting each finding; SOILS: A potential adverse effect may occur from fugi- tive dust emmissions during the construction phase of the project. Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to the potential adverse effect of the escape of fugitive dust during the construction phase. Supporting Facts: Normal erosion control practices employed during the construction phase will minimize adverse effects from fugitive dust. -4- AIR QUALITY: Because Kern County is not in compliance with all Federal Air Quality Standards, the project may be technically considered to have a significant impact on the environment. Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to the potential for the projects contribution to air pollu- tion in Kern County, Finding (2), above, applies to the County's ability to conform to Federal Air Quality Standards as it relates to the project. Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1): A rideshare program should be designed into the overall project at the development stage and regular transit service with bus stops and shelters should be provided. The following action is in support of Finding (2): Kern County must amend the 1982 update of the AQMD/NAP and effect compliance by December 21, 1987. AESTHETICS: The proposed project would reduce open space vistas presently available. Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to the potential for aesthetic impacts from the proposal. Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1): Proposed development between the proposed Stockdale Highway realignment and the Kern River is within the Kern River Plan area and would be constructed in conformance with the plan and applicable policies if approved. TRANSPORTATION AND CIRCULATION: The proposed project will generate approximately 19,215 vehicle trips over existing land uses. This volume may have a significant effect on the existing road system serving the area. Findings and Application: Finding (1) applies to the potential for adverse effects due to traffic generation from the proposed project. Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1): Stockdale Highway, Ming Avenue, Buena Vista Road and Old River Road should be developed to major arterial standards as depicted on the Circulation Element of the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area Genera]. Plan. Where there are a significant number of projected turning movements on these roadways, such as at major intersections and near commercial land uses, a fixed turn pocket or continuous turn lane should be provided. Signalization will be required where Old River Road and Buena Vista Road intersect with Stockdale Highway and Ming Avenue. -5- To insure all traffic flows can be accommodated by the circulation system at project buildout, roadway rights-of-way should be acquired as property division occurs. City policy establishes developer proportions of responsibility for traffic controls, street widening and other infrastructure requirements. CULTURAL RESOURCES: Excavation during development of roads, culverts, and building foundations has the poten- tial for unearthing previously unknown cultural resources. Findings and Application: Finding (1), above, applies to potential impacts on cultural resources. Supporting Facts: The following actions are required as mitigation measures in support of Finding (1): Any archeological artifacts or remnants discovered should be evaluated by competent authorities to determine their significance and to recommend necessary mitigation measures. Any cultural resource finding shall require excava- tion or activity to immediately cease until competent cultural resource authorities have examined the site. GROWTH INDUCING IMPACTS: The establishment of additional office and Medical Health Campus Facilities will produce substantial growth-inducing impacts on surrounding prime agricultural land. Findings and Application: Finding (2), above, applies to the growth inducing impact of the project. Supporting Facts: Because there is no feasible mitiga- tion for the growth inducing impacts of the proposed pro- ject, a Statement of Overriding Considerations is necessary for the project. Specific reasons for issuing a Statement of Overriding Considerations are as follows: The project objectives are to provide office space and medical care facilities and services in the rapidly developing Southwest Bakersfield area. Proposed Land Use Designations would provide con- sistent and compatible land use relationships with previously approved Land Use Designations in the city. The proposed Health Campus development would provide various health care services to respond to a variety of health needs. The project area, with the exception of the 7.2 acres to be annexed to the city, are currently planned for development as Low Density Residential on the Bakersfield Metropolitan Area Land Use Element. The proposed development, when compared to existing Land Use Element designations, would result in a substantial decrease in demand for water, sewer, and school services. 6. The project would result in contiguous growth of the city. -6- and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission on the basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts found and this Council finds that the significant environmental effect which may not be substantially mitigated to a level of insignificance is the growth inducing impact of the proposed project; and WHEREAS, the project objectives are to provide office space and medical care facilities and services in the rapidly deve- loping southwest Bakersfield area, to provide consistent and com- patible land use relationships with previously approved City Land Use Element Designations, to provide various health care services to respond to a variety of health needs, to lessen the future demand for water, sewer and school services in the project area, and to allow for the contiguous growth of the City; and WHEREAS, the City Planning finds that the benefits of the Commission found and this Council project outweigh the unavoidable remaining adverse environmental effects sufficiently to declare the adverse environmental effects as "acceptable" and hereby to issue a Statement of Overriding Considerations; and WHEREAS, the City of Bakersfield Planning Commission, on the basis of the Findings and Statement of Facts, found and this Council finds that other significant environmental effects raised the EIR have been eliminated or substantially lessened and that any remaining, unavoidable significant effects have been found acceptable on the basis of specific economic, social or other considerations including those described for a Statement of Overriding Considerations, and making additional mitigation or alternatives to the project infeasible. in --7- NOW, THEREFORE, THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF BAKERSFIELD HEREBY DETERMINES, FINDS AND RESOLVES AS FOLLOWS: 1. The above findings and recitals are true and correct. 2. That the Final EIR dated December, response as an appended document, has been and considered by this Council. 1984, including City reviewed, evaluated 3. That the Final EIR has been completed in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and The City of Bakersfield Resolution 132-83. 4. That said Final EIR is an accurate and objective discussion of the proposed project and adequately discusses and describes the environmental considerations and mitigation measures. 5. That the various alternatives to the project, including "no project", have been considered in the Final EIR. 6. That in consideration of the above statements and fin- dings, the City Council certifies the Final EIR as complete, with appended material including information contained in this Resolution, and in compliance with the California Environmental Quality Act, the State EIR Guidelines and City of Bakersfield Resolution 132-83. I HEREBY CERTIFY that the foregoing Resolution was passed and adopted by the Council of the City of Bakersfield at the Regular of February 1985, by the Meeting thereof held on the13thday following roll call vote: DATED: February 13, 1985 RK AND EX Officio Clerk of Council of the City of Bakersfield APPROVED THIS MAYOR of the City eld APPROVED as to form: the